Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 77
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Nilam Kumar Pattnaik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22756 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Behera, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
A party's entitlement to benefits cannot be revoked without due process and a fair opportunity to be heard as mandated under the applicable rules.
Headnote:(A) ORSP Rules, 2017 - Pay fixation - Petitioner challenged the order directing reconsideration of pay benefits based on previous Collector's order, fearing revocation without hearing - Court emphasized the necessity of proper hearing before revisiting entitlement, permitting the petitioner to apply for reconsideration with a mandate for compliance within stipulated timelines. (Paras 4.2, 6.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having received pay fixation benefits under ORSP Rules, 2017, was concerned about a subsequent order allowing for reconsideration of this benefit without an opportunity for a hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court permitted the petitioner to seek reconsideration with a provision to ensure a timely and lawful decision, reaffirming the need for due process.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the order could be revoked without hearing the petitioner and the proper application of the ORSP Rules, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must be given an opportunity for a hearing before any decision on the revocation of benefits, highlighting procedural fairness under the rules governing pay fixation.
Result: Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the government's order (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues against potential pay fixation revocation (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observations on petitioner's rights and re-application (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition disposed of as directed (Para 7) |
ORDER :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 10.06.2022, so passed under Annexure-1 by the Govt. in the department of Finance.
4. It is contended that while disposing the claim of one Pramod Kumar Behura, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7257 of 2021, an observation was made in the said order that decision taken by the Collector, Balangir and Nuapada if confirms to the above procedure, then the same is to be followed otherwise the same is to be revoked and correctly decided as explained above.
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that after coming into effect of ORSP Rules, 2017 and pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Balangir on 19.05.2021, petitioner’s pay was fixed under ORSP Rules, 2017 in Level-6, Cell-15 vide order dated 18.10.2021 under Annexure-11.
4.2. However, because of the direction/observation contained in order dated 10.06.2022 under Annexure- 1, petitioner apprehend that the benefit so extended in his favour vide order under Annexure-11 will be revoked. It is also contended that without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, such an order could not have been passed by O.P. No.1 to revisit the petitioner’s entitlement to get the benefit of pay fixation in Level-6, Cell-15.
4.3. It is also contended that such a direction has been issued without proper appreciation of ORSP Rules, 2017. It is also contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 28.09.2022, no coercive action has been taken against the petitioner till date.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since basing on the impugned order, no further action has been taken to withdraw the benefit so extended in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 18.10.2021 under Annexure-11, petitioner has got no cause of action. It is further contended that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the observation/direction contained in order dated 10.06.2022, let the petitioner bring the same to the notice of O.P. No.1 for its re-consideration.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was extended with the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2017 and his pay was fixed in Level-6, Cell-15 vide order dated 18.10.2021 under Annexure-11 pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Balangir on 19.05.2021. However, in the impugned order dated 10.06.2022, it has been observed/directed that the benefit of pay fixation made in favour of the petitioner basing on the order passed by the Collector, Bolangir can be re-visited.
6.1. Considering the submission made and the materials available, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to make an appropriate application before O.P. No.1 with regard to the observation/direction made in the order dated 10.06.2022 for revocation of the benefit so extended in favour of the petitioner under Annexure-11 for its re- consideration. It is observed that if any such application will be made within a period of 3 (three) weeks hence, O.P. No.1 shall take a lawful decision on the same by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a further period of 2 (two) months. Till a decision is taken as directed, interim order passed by this Court on 28.09.2022 shall continue.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
